Copyright 1999 The National Journal, Inc. 
  
The National Journal 
February 27, 1999 
SECTION: LOBBYING; Pg. 534; Vol. 31, No. 9 
LENGTH: 2701 words 
HEADLINE: 
Ignore Us, Please 
BYLINE: Marilyn Werber Serafini 
HIGHLIGHT: 
Tired of being on the defensive in 
Washington, the trade group 
that represents HMOs is in New Hampshire and 
Iowa with a message 
for GOP presidential candidates: Leave us alone. 
BODY: 
     Bud Hawkins, vice 
president of National Aperture Inc., a 
small, but rapidly growing, high-tech 
company in Salem, N.H., is 
a recruit in an unusual battle being waged by the 
American 
Association of Health Plans, a Washington trade association that 
represents health maintenance organizations and other managed 
care 
health plans. The AAHP has launched a campaign in New 
Hampshire and Iowa 
aimed at convincing Republican presidential 
candidates to ignore (that's 
right, ignore) a supposedly popular 
issue: giving more rights to patients in 
managed care plans. And 
Hawkins, who's worried that government mandates 
would make health 
care more expensive, is happy to oblige. 
  
   ''Any increase (in premiums) comes out of our bottom line 
and 
inhibits our growth,'' he said. ''We can't expect employees 
to pick up 
higher costs in a tight labor market.'' After 
receiving a mailing from AAHP 
on the issue, Hawkins agreed to 
participate in a press conference urging 
presidential candidates 
not to champion managed care 
reform. 
     The AAHP campaign is, to understate 
the case, atypical of 
the usual form of issue activism in New Hampshire and 
Iowa. 
Normally, groups try to get presidential candidates interested in 
promoting their issues, on the theory that a little attention by 
a 
presidential candidate can leverage a lot of attention by an 
approving and 
concerned public, which can in turn leverage the 
legislative attention of 
Washington. The AAHP effort, by 
contrast, is making the case that 
presidential candidates should 
ignore the issue of managed care regulation 
because the public 
actually doesn't care about it. If the presidential 
candidates 
ignore it, the theory goes, so, too, will Congress. 
     Second, business associations in the past have not 
tended 
to get involved in early primary and caucus states, preferring to 
concentrate their lobbying in Washington. AAHP, tired of being on 
the 
defensive in Washington, decided to take a new tack. (Still 
fresh in the 
health industry's mind is the health reform fight of 
1993-94. While industry 
slept, consumer groups helped make health 
reform a major issue in the 1992 
presidential campaign; industry 
eventually succeeded in killing the Clinton 
plan, but only after 
tens of millions of dollars in expenses and a bruising 
battle.) 
     ''We're trying to take lobbying into the 
21st century,'' 
said Mark Merritt, vice president and chief of strategic 
planning 
at AAHP. ''The days when you could sit down with someone's chief 
of staff and sip martinis are gone. We're trying to impact a 
broader 
debate. If you can drive news in New Hampshire, you drive 
it nationally. 
It's the wave of the future.'' 
     So how do you make 
the case that an issue should be 
ignored? One way is to take a poll. In 
January, AAHP paid 
Republican pollster Whit Ayres to question 300 likely 
Republican 
primary voters in New Hampshire and 300 likely Republican voters 
in Iowa on their concerns about health care. (AAHP chose to 
ignore 
Democratic voters and candidates because Democrats tend to 
favor more 
regulation of managed care. Merritt said it would be a 
waste of time to try 
to influence Democrats on the issue.) 
     The poll found 
that likely Republican voters were 
somewhat concerned about rapidly rising 
health care costs and the 
growing numbers of uninsured. But they weren't 
much concerned at 
all about managed care reform and didn't 
think candidates should 
focus on it. Indeed, 85 percent of Republicans in 
managed care 
plans said they were happy with their coverage. AAHP took the 
results and pitched them to political reporters in New Hampshire 
and 
Iowa. To entice the reporters, AAHP also asked horse-race 
questions of the 
Republican voters. (Elizabeth H. Dole and George 
W. Bush were their 
favorites.) That's what interested Garry 
Rayno, who covers the statehouse 
for Foster's Daily Democrat in 
Dover, N.H. Rayno said he went to Ayres' 
press briefing to get 
the horse-race numbers, but he ended up writing a 
story that 
focused on the poll's health care findings--exactly what AAHP 
wanted. 
     ''We're viewing lobbying as totally 
different than it is 
viewed by 99 percent of the organizations in this 
town,'' boasts 
Merritt. ''If we focus on the campaign when the voters do, in 
the 
fall of 2000, there's no way we can win,'' he said. At that 
point, 
he added, ''the candidates have already figured out which 
issues they're 
going to use. The way to change issues is now, 
with a two-year campaign.'' 
     The GOP presidential candidates are receptive now, 
Merritt said, because they are unfamiliar with New Hampshire and 
Iowa. 
''They're used to being lord and master of where they're 
from. They know the 
state in and out. But when it comes to New 
Hampshire and Iowa, they're 
getting their sea legs. They will 
meet with us. They will take our polling 
information.'' 
     But not everyone is impressed. 
''They've made a big 
miscalculation,'' said Ronald Pollack, president of 
Families USA, 
a Washington-based consumer group pushing for legislation to 
expand the rights of managed care patients. For one thing, 
predicted 
Pollack, Congress will enact managed care reform before 
the 
presidential election, making AAHP's campaign largely 
irrelevant. For 
another, said Pollack, by targeting Republican 
presidential candidates, AAHP 
is preaching to the choir. 
     ''The issue of health 
care in general, and patients 
rights in specific, is never an issue which 
the Republican 
leadership has wanted to talk about. That's going to be true 
of 
most of the Republican candidates for President,'' Pollack said. 
''We've been silently amused by (AAHP's) effort. It will be a 
significant expenditure that's a very misplaced expenditure. 
We're happy 
they're doing that, because they're missing the 
boat.'' 
  
   Some Republicans are also critical. Paul Young, director 
of 
northeast operations for Republican Steve Forbes' political 
organization, 
Americans for Hope, Growth, and Opportunity, said 
that even without AAHP's 
efforts, Republican candidates aren't 
likely to bring up HMO reform. Young 
said he never saw AAHP's 
polling information. 
    
 Steve Duprey, New Hampshire's state GOP chairman, offers 
a different 
criticism. HMO reform is already a big issue in New 
Hampshire, he said, 
because Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, who 
was just re-elected, made it one 
of her top three campaign 
issues. He said the issue helped Democrats gain 
control of the 
state Senate for the first time since 1912. 
  
   ''Every one of our 10 (presidential) candidates will go 
into a 
living room party and I guarantee they'll get a question: 
'What can you do 
to make HMOs work better?' Every candidate will 
address it. They won't 
ignore it, because it's already such a big 
issue in New Hampshire. They 
shouldn't ignore it. They are 
whistling through the graveyard if they think 
voters are not 
going to talk about this issue.'' 
Fighting Politics 
With Politics 
     AAHP has a lot to lobby about. For 
several years now, the 
HMO industry has been under attack, in state capitals 
and in 
Washington, from legislators inundated with complaints about 
managed care. Many states have passed laws requiring health plans 
to pay 
for more hospital days for certain procedures, prohibiting 
them from denying 
most emergency room coverage, and requiring 
independent grievance 
procedures. 
     Congress has passed a few bills as well, 
but it got 
bogged down last year when it tried to pass comprehensive 
legislation. Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate 
have 
promised to push through legislation this year; members of 
both parties have 
already introduced many bills. Some would go as 
far as allowing patients to 
sue their health plans for denying 
services. 
    
 AAHP responded to some of the earlier legislative threats 
in Congress 
by promising voluntary industry standards. For a 
while, it even looked as if 
some health plans would support a 
limited federal bill. But the association 
is now tougher than 
ever in its opposition to any legislation. 
     Some health care policy observers warn that this 
stance 
may hurt the health plans in the end. If AAHP doesn't work with 
Congress to achieve compromises on the legislation, they say, the 
group 
could lose the ability to soften the bill. 
     Karen 
Ignagni, AAHP's president, counters that her group 
is trying to make a 
difference in Washington, and that it will 
continue lobbying on Capitol 
Hill, running ads in Washington, and 
bringing in member health plans and 
supporters to spread the 
word. But during the past two years, Ignagni has 
also carried out 
a plan to transform the AAHP into more of a political 
organization. ''We're into a political debate that deserves a 
political 
approach,'' she said. 
     AAHP will have a $ 20 million 
budget in 1999--the same 
amount it had in 1998. But Ignagni is rechanneling 
funds to 
grassroots and media activities. ''The whole question of how we 
advocate on behalf of our members as an association has evolved 
throughout the 1990s. We're no longer approaching our 
responsibility as 
going up to the Hill, lobbying, and doing an 
occasional research report,'' 
she said. 
     Ignagni's first step was to bring on a 
political 
operative (Merritt, who was presidential hopeful Lamar 
Alexander's press secretary in 1996) to help the association 
become more 
politically savvy. Ignagni hired several more 
strategists, who went to work 
quickly to strengthen existing 
grass-roots alliances and form new ones. They 
used information 
about the effects of proposed health plan mandates on 
employment, 
local economies, and employees to find allies outside of 
Washington. The idea, Ignagni said, is to ''drive grass roots, 
which 
drives the press, which drives politics, and gives more 
energy and exposure 
to grass roots, where the whole thing begins 
again.'' 
    
 In New Hampshire, in addition to commissioning a poll, 
AAHP has 
enlisted Brian McCabe to serve as its political 
consultant. McCabe, who was 
executive director of Bob Dole's New 
Hampshire campaign in 1996, and is now 
president of McCabe 
Consulting Group, lined up two small-business owners, 
including 
Hawkins, to participate in a press conference at which Ayres 
released the poll findings. 
      AAHP has already 
gotten some positive feedback. After it 
released the poll results in New 
Hampshire and Iowa, a handful of 
newspaper stories appeared in each state, 
and a lengthy piece ran 
on National Public Radio and in Legal Times. 
     But what excited AAHP executives most is what 
happened 
next. Merritt started getting calls from campaign workers and 
consultants who wanted to see the full package of information, 
health 
care stuff and all. ''I guarantee that that poll was in 
every (candidate's) 
briefing book for January or February,'' said 
a GOP campaign consultant. 
''If you're preparing a candidate to 
go up for their first trip (to New 
Hampshire and Iowa), they need 
to know this kind of information.'' 
     Merritt said that AAHP will follow up with 
television and 
radio ads in both New Hampshire and Iowa, and that it will 
try to 
build and maintain a relationship with political reporters in the 
two states. Ignagni said that business leaders in other states 
are 
calling her to ask if the AAHP can bring the program to their 
states. She 
may do that. 
     A linchpin of the effort is the poll, 
which shows, 
according to Merritt, that managed care regulation ''is a loser 
issue to get involved in.'' In New Hampshire and Iowa, most GOP 
respondents said that they placed greater weight on issues other 
than 
HMO reform, such as character, and positions on taxes and 
education. Between 
60 percent and 70 percent of respondents in 
both states said that they would 
oppose more government 
regulation of employer-provided health care plans if 
it raised 
health care costs by $ 25 per month. And in Iowa, about 70 percent 
of respondents said that they think most politicians who make an 
issue 
of regulating HMOs are ''just trying to gain political 
advantage for 
elections,'' as opposed to being serious about 
protecting consumers. 
It's All in the Question 
     But some question 
AAHP's survey results. ''It's how you 
talk and how you ask the question,'' 
said Mollyann Brodie, vice 
president for public opinion and media research 
at the Henry J. 
Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, Calif. Kaiser has 
conducted similar polls of Republicans and Democrats, but has 
emerged 
with significantly different findings. The reason, Brodie 
says, is that 
while AAHP asked about goals for the nation, Kaiser 
asked about personal 
concerns. 
     ''If you ask them if they're personally 
concerned for 
themselves and for their families, it's a more important 
issue,'' 
she said. ''We asked them how concerned they were about the 
following issues for them and their families. Sixty-nine percent 
said 
they were concerned about protecting patients' rights in 
HMOs and managed 
care.'' 
     Stephen Gorin, president of the New 
Hampshire Citizens 
Alliance, a group that sometimes works informally with 
the 
Washington-based Families USA, says his organization will be 
trying 
to make managed care reform an issue in the presidential 
campaign, regardless of AAHP's efforts. ''I'm surprised that 
they're 
here, but we welcome the challenge,'' said Gorin. ''I'm 
one of the leaders 
of the opposition, and we think public opinion 
is on our side.'' 
     After AAHP released its poll results, Gorin issued a 
press release responding that the AAHP poll was misleading. Some 
of that 
information made it into the newspaper stories. 
Specifically, Gorin 
challenges the poll's assumption that a 
patients' bill of rights could raise 
the health care costs of 
employer-provided health coverage by $ 25 a month, 
per person. 
Gorin's press release cites estimates from the Congressional 
Budget Office that the Patients' Bill of Rights sponsored last 
year by 
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. John D. 
Dingell, D-Mich., would 
raise those prices only about $ 2 per 
month. 
    
 Moreover, he said that AAHP made a mistake in limiting 
its polls to 
potential GOP primary voters. ''Those are the people 
you'd tend to assume 
are the most conservative Republicans. It's 
not surprising that a fair 
number of them would oppose a 
patients' bill of rights.'' 
  
   Gorin and Pollack intend to raise the visibility of 
health care 
issues in New Hampshire with their own initiative 
called New Hampshire Asks. 
(They're helping to start a similar 
initiative in Iowa, too.) The idea is to 
pick two important 
health care issues and raise them repeatedly when 
candidates come 
to the state. 
     The effort is 
expected to be similar to one in 1992 when 
some 40 organizations agreed to 
ask candidates questions about 
health care reform. ''We repeated them over 
and over again. The 
Concord Monitor called us a Greek chorus,'' said Gorin. 
''We 
think we had some impact, particularly with the Democrats. We're 
bipartisan, but certainly in '92, it was the Democrats who were 
listening to us. We helped push Clinton toward taking a stand.'' 
     Gorin acknowledges that AAHP will probably have some 
effect on the HMO debate this time around. ''Their good fortune 
is that 
they have the money to run the kind of campaign we would 
like to run.'' 
     Merritt insists that the AAHP's approach is the wave 
of 
the future for lobbying. ''The congressional legislative agenda 
is 
increasingly dominated by the presidential campaign,'' he 
said. ''Both 
parties see the outcome of the presidential contest 
and the issues debated 
as the single most important (factor 
determining) who controls Congress 
after 2000. So, this is our 
way, and an efficient way, to get an awful lot 
of bang for our 
buck.'' 
LOAD-DATE: March 01, 1999